“Crawley believes that CFS is a biological illness and that online CBT can be used to alter the young person’s biology.”
A rather important point. Worthy of tweeting/sharing on media. Biology is no roadblock to using the BPS solution.
...
Even rigorous science will not be enough to dissuade this group and they have the blessings of official policy behind
....
This can't be said often enough--nobody disputes a biological aetiology. It's about what happens when the person doesn't (refuses in BPS terms) to get well.
Hard for BPS researchers to now claim they believe CFS is a biological illness having written:
"According to this model, the symptoms and disability
of CFS/ME are perpetuated predominantly by unhelpful
illness beliefs (fears) and coping behaviours (avoidance)."
-
Manual for Therapists - CBT for CFS/ME - PACE.
Burgess/Chalder.
Yes, UK BPS folk conceded CFS *might* have a biological trigger, but the whole point of the BPS "hit and run" analogy was to play right down the importance of investigating an *ongoing* biological cause.
--------------------
Too often we see "CBT" left undefined in BPS discussion. Blanket statements such as "CBT is safe" are wrong. The safety of CBT is dependent on the cognitions the specific therapy has been designed to challenge.
As to CBT having an effect on biology, well, yeah, but it doesn't necessarily follow that said effect will be beneficial.
--------------------
I am glad to see mention of PEM in FITNET and talk of the need for biological research within MEGA... the trouble is that I simply don't have confidence in these researchers. The reason? - Because they won't address the methodological flaws in pace.